After months of tension over a proposed cannabis dispensary that neighbors say does not belong in a former CVS store in Akron’s Merriman Valley, City Council approved the project this week — underscoring the limits of neighborhood opposition when a proposal meets zoning requirements and state law.

After the 7-5 vote Jan. 29, several residents stood up and left the chamber, shaking their heads as council concluded the meeting.

“Our council member threw us under the bus,” said Jennifer Konstand, 61, of Ward 1 representative Fran Wilson. “More than 90% of the people in this neighborhood are totally against it, and we’re the ones who are directly affected.”

“This is not the end,” said 74-year-old Barbara Gross. “We will come back.”

Wilson explained after the meeting that their vote to approve came after nearly two months of meeting with residents, business owners and directly affected neighbors. They reviewed public comments, and neighbors’ concerns were incorporated into the legislation, adding conditions addressing traffic, private road access and neighborhood impacts.

Wilson acknowledged resident frustration but said they believe the project will ultimately benefit the neighborhood if conditions are enforced.

“I think that this is not going to be a bad thing, it is going to be an asset, and I look forward to doing the work to prove that.” 

Huron-based OPC Cultivation LLC (Ohio Patients’ Choice), operating under the brand name Firelands Scientific, plans to use 3,000 square feet of space for retail cannabis sales in the former CVS store, located near the corner of 1140 W. Portage Trail near the corner with North Portage Path.

Another 7,700 square feet will be used for three future retail tenants. The property will have 59 parking spaces and feature enhanced security measures. 

The dispensary was initially proposed for Highland Square but that plan was withdrawn after neighborhood opposition. 

Nearly a dozen residents — including homeowners and business owners — spoke against the project during public comment, highlighting three primary concerns: traffic, crime and property values. 

Katrina Dunn, an Akron Public Schools teacher, pleaded with council members to reject the project.

“I’m a teacher and a mother, and I chose to raise my son here in Merriman Valley because I believe in this community. I want him to grow up safely — to play in the parks, take classes, and someday work in local businesses. With so many young children around, I hope anyone investing here will also invest in the families who already call this neighborhood home. I challenge you to invest in the people you want to be here in the future for Akron.”

Attorney Alex Quay, who represents Crossings Development and nearby retail property owner Nicole Lee, said the issue was not cannabis itself but the location. He said that none of the Akron area’s current dispensaries are directly adjacent to dense residential housing, and other dispensary applicants received broader support by selecting sites farther from neighborhoods, schools and parks. 

“Nobody wants a vacant building next to where they live,” Quay said. “But they certainly don’t want a dispensary next to where they live.”

Council Member-at-Large Jeff Fusco noted that lingering stigma around cannabis continues to shape public reaction. He said state-licensed dispensaries are often conflated with unregulated smoke shops, despite data showing a significant difference in police and service calls.

“The State of Ohio got it right,” Fusco said, emphasizing that dispensaries are far more tightly regulated than smoke shops, which the city has only recently begun addressing through local ordinances.

Kyle Julien, Akron’s planning director, added that traffic and safety concerns in the Merriman Valley are already under review, independent of the dispensary proposal. He said the city has spent three years pursuing funding for traffic improvements and secured additional funding through its 2026 application to study key intersections along Portage Trail. 

Julien said the Merriman Valley Master Plan, completed in 2023, identifies the corridor’s street network as overbuilt and prioritizes making the area safer and more walkable. While recreational cannabis was not contemplated at the time, the plan calls for reinvestment in existing commercial areas to avoid sprawl and protect green space. 

The proposed dispensary aligns with the city’s form-based zoning code, which encourages renovating older commercial buildings rather than demolition. The 1997 CVS would be updated with added windows, landscaping and clearer pedestrian access.

Ward 5 Council Member Johnnie Hannah, who voted against the proposal, said the number of residents in opposition should have carried more weight.

“This gallery was full of residents who are against this proposal,” Hannah said. “How can we, as elected officials, not listen and act on the wishes of the residents we serve?” 

He cited traffic concerns based on his experience as a former bus operator and said the presence of children along the corridor heightened those concerns. “My concern is the traffic and the children in that neighborhood,” he said.

Council members Tina Boyes, Jan Davis, Fusco, Margo Sommerville, Sharon Connor, Wilson and Brad McKitrick voted to approve the measure. Council members Bruce Bolden, Linda Omobien, Johnnie Hannah, Eric Garrett and Phil Lombardo voted against it following the special public meeting, which was scheduled to allow for more feedback from residents. Ward 7 Council Member Donnie Kammer was absent for the vote after leaving the meeting early.

Supporters of the dispensary pushed back. Jesse Gannon, general counsel for OPC Cultivation LLC, disputed claims that dispensaries depress property values or increase crime, saying opponents mischaracterized a National Association of Realtors report.

The report found: 

• Nearly 80% of respondents reported no change or were indifferent to residential property values near dispensaries, while 7% reported an increase. 
• Similar results were found for commercial properties.
• On crime, 63% to 77% reported no change or indifference to perceived crime.
• More than 80% reported no change in actual crime.

“That’s not how we interpret this report,” Gannon said. “We’re asking for the opportunity to invest in the neighborhood and repurpose a building that’s currently sitting vacant.”